Hoffmann v. Corning Police Department

Filing
93

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/29/2017 GRANTING plaintiff's 90 motion for continuance and the 12/14/2017 hearing on defendants' 87 motion to dismiss is CONTINUED to 1/11/2018 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman. The 11/7/2017 further scheduling order 86 is VACATED; the pretrial statement and pretrial conference dates will be rescheduled following resolution of defendants' motion to dismiss. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ROBIN LEE HOFFMANN,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
v.
No. 2:14-cv-2736 MCE KJN P
ORDER
CORNING POLICE DEPARTMENT, et
al.,
Defendants.
16
17
18
Plaintiff is a former county jail inmate, proceeding pro se. On November 20, 2017,
19
plaintiff filed a motion to continue the hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss, as well as the
20
deadlines for filing pretrial statements and the pretrial conference, due to medical reasons.
21
Plaintiff is scheduled for more surgery to her left eye orbital injury on December 22, 2017, and to
22
prevent risk of fibromyalgia flare-up or have any delay of her necessary surgery, her treating
23
doctor suggests she focus on her medical responsibilities until the second week of January 2018.
24
(ECF No. 90 at 3.)
25
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
26
1. Plaintiff’s motion for continuance (ECF No. 90) is granted;
27
2. Hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 87) is continued from December
28
14, 2017, until January 11, 2018, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom #25 before the undersigned; and
1
1
3. The November 7, 2017 further scheduling order (ECF No. 86) is vacated; the pretrial
2
statement and pretrial conference dates will be rescheduled following resolution of defendants’
3
motion to dismiss.
4
Dated: November 29, 2017
5
6
7
/hoff2736.con
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.